So first it sounds a lot like this fella will never really admit defeat on this one, so whats the point? Its like the people who want to debate creationism but you know there is zero chance that they are gonna ever admit defeat no matter what arguments are levied against them because they are starting from a position that isn't applicable to science.

Now, I don't know the background of this guy, but from the article thats the sound.

Secondly, as a snopes poster once said (I shall quote the best I can), "Even if we can prove beyond a doubt that the shroud really does show an image of a Jewish man from that region from roughly 2000 years ago, how does this prove that man was Jesus? And How does it prove anything else?"

"Even if we can prove beyond a doubt that the shroud really does show an image of a Jewish man from that region from roughly 2000 years ago, how does this prove that man was Jesus? And How does it prove anything else?"

It doesn't. But it reopens the possibility of the shroud being authentic (whatever "authentic" would be).

" (The radiocarbon date) ...is like a square peg in a round hole. It's not fitting properly, and the question is why."

What doesn't it fit. It doesn't fit their predetermined outcome, and the reason is that their outcome is incorrect. If I think that 3 + 3 = 7 then the scientific view of the question will not fit my expected outcome.

I'm also intrigued that he thinks it is "1300 years out of date". Why not 500 years, or 2300, or 345. Again, a predetermined outcome.

But I just remembered, we're arguing with fundamentalists. And to think we expected them to talk sense.

Probably because it was painted in the 14th century. IIRC there is a letter about it from a priest to his bishop where the writer says something about having met the artist.

Not to put words in Skeptic's mouth, but what I think he meant by his question was, the assumption that it's 1300 years out of date is the same as the assumption that it's genuine. In other words, the neutral position would be "the date could be wrong, let's check to see what the right date is", not "the date is wrong, here's the right one."

Now, I don't know the background of this guy, but from the article thats the sound.

-MB

I do not get that from the article at all. I get from the article that he is trying to determine what there is differences in the carbon dating, and trying to determine what is the age of the shroud.
He has some science education to back him up, and I would wait for his research before making the decision that he has a biased agenda based on the article.

Wiki link Not terribly exhaustive but does cover the theory that the Shroud is a medieval forgery. In fact, I thought it was pretty much settled that the Shroud was in fact a medieval forgery. Why is this coming up again?

Wiki link Not terribly exhaustive but does cover the theory that the Shroud is a medieval forgery. In fact, I thought it was pretty much settled that the Shroud was in fact a medieval forgery. Why is this coming up again?

IIRC, there was a claim of possible errors in the carbon dating due to saturation of the shroud, with pollen and smoke from the medieval era. Not only that, but as time passes, the methods of carbon dating are more accurate and the "give or take" disclaimer tacked on to any analysis of age, is much narrower.

I'm all for more testing - let there be as little doubt as possible. At least the claim for errors seems plausible, and isn't based upon anything "mystical".

I've always wondered how the shroud, of all the fake relics floating around medieval Europe, the shroud managed to persist.

I'm thoroughly convinced it's a medieval fake. I read Joe Nickell's book, which is quite compelling, especially for his refutation of the idea that medieval artistic techniques didn't include anything that would create the shroud. Before I read the book, I, as a Jew, didn't think there was anything miraculous about the shroud, or that it was used on the one and only Jesus, but I was willing to entertain ideas that it could have been older than medieval, or could have been "accidentally" created in some way-- ie, that it could have at one point been someone's burial shroud. But since reading Nickell's book, I don't think it's anything but a forged medieval relic made for the express purpose of wringing money from the peasantry.

Part of the problem, IMHO, is that people who study the shoud have immense knowledge of the shroud itself, but very little in general about the middle ages, or about art and fabrication.

Just as a small example, they seem never to know that making monument rubbings with cloth or cloth paper and charcol or rose madder was a popular medieval past-time, and one of the few economical ways of having a copy of a work of art before photography.

Reproducing an image like the Turin Shroud does not prove that the shroud is a fake - it just shows that the shroud could have been created in mediaeval times. That said, the experiment appears to show how the image might have been created.

Reproducing an image like the Turin Shroud does not prove that the shroud is a fake - it just shows that the shroud could have been created in mediaeval times. That said, the experiment appears to show how the image might have been created.

The combination of radiocarbon dating of the original and the ability to reproduce it indicates the shroud's image wasn't created by wrapping up a body nearly 2000 years ago. Relic-making was big business in mediaeval times with saints' bones and saints' blood and bits of wood from the cross in circulation. The fact someone created such a stunning (and controversial)piece is interesting in itself and one can only hope it was an act of faith rather than an eye to a profit (no prophet pun intended).

One of Christianity's most disputed relics, it is locked away at Turin Cathedral in Italy and rarely exhibited. It was last on display in 2000 and is due to be shown again next year.

I wonder if the Catholic Church will let the cathedral in Turin put it out on display given all the recent relevations? Perhaps it'll be an even bigger draw as the believers will come to silence the doubters and the doubters will come to view its unauthenticity.

I believe that Turin Cathedral are putting the shroud on display next year. It was last seen in public in 2000. Are they planning a ten yearly showing? I believe that the Roman Catholic church regard the shroud as being an icon, an image of Christ, but not a genuine relic.

I was watching a TV show some years ago. That least one of the historians has very sceptical about any of the old religious findings. For him it was the fact that when ever a religious leader or king took a strong interest in finding a religious location or at least physical evidence of the something from the bible. I was found quit quickly especially if powerful leader showed up in person to over see things.